9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s Circular No.108/02/2009-ST dated 29.01.2009 and directed adjudication authority to consider the matter in view of the above Circular. Thereafter on remand, Commissioner has rightly followed the direction issued by this Tribunal and dropped the proceedings against the respondent. However, respondent proceeded with review and as per the Review Order, no reference is made to Board's Circular No.108/02/2009-ST dated 29.01.2009 as directed by this Tribunal. Moreover, the issue on merit is also squarely covered by large number of decisions including the decisions in M/S GARDENCITY REALTY PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE [ 2024 (7) TMI 477 - CESTAT BANGALORE] . Hence demand of service tax with interest and impositi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ractors for the purpose of sale on a sum agreed upon for the ultimate handing over of the apartments to the respective clients only for their intended residential purpose as per the sale agreement and contract agreements executed between them. Accordingly, any service provided by any seller in connection with the residential complexes till execution of such sale deed would be in the nature of self-service. Consequently, demand was dropped by the Adjudication authority. However, Committee of Chief Commissioners reviewed the order and the present appeal is filed by the Revenue. 4. When the appeal came up for hearing, learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the appellant submits that the activity of construction would be deemed to be a taxa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rried out, as evident from the impugned review order No. 01/2010 dated 08.04.2010, the reviewing authority has not examined the issue in the light of Board's Circular No.108/02/2009-ST dated 29.01.2009 as directed by this Tribunal but proceeded on the ground that the buyers have made payment in instalments and unless the entire payment for the property is paid by the prospective buyer or on his behalf after completion of construction, the activity of construction would be deemed to be a Taxable Service provided by the Builder/Promoter/Developer to the prospective buyer and the said transaction would squarely attract Service Tax. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the said finding is contradictory to the judgements and even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation authority to consider the matter in view of the above Circular. Thereafter on remand, Commissioner has rightly followed the direction issued by this Tribunal and dropped the proceedings against the respondent. However, respondent proceeded with review and as per the Review Order, no reference is made to Board's Circular No.108/02/2009-ST dated 29.01.2009 as directed by this Tribunal. Moreover, the issue on merit is also squarely covered by large number of decisions including the decisions in Garden city Realty Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax (supra). Hence demand of service tax with interest and imposition of penalty on respondent is unsustainable. 9. In view of the facts of the case and the catena of decisions on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
